Irn-Bru wrote:As I said above, I would not be reluctant to call a gathering of Redskins fans, players, or staff, etc., Redskins.

hah. That is not remotely the question, my friend, and you know it.

Anyway, I've gone back and forth on the whole name thing a lot myself. Believe me, I'm equally irritated by the whole PC thing, and I personally find it hard to believe that anybody is REALLY, honestly that offended about our team name. People have a certain axe to grind, and our team name is the target. I don't really have any doubt about that.

This question about whether or not you would be willing to use the word to describe a group of Native Americans is worth thinking about though. I don't see how you can honor a group of people with a word that you would be afraid to use to describe them. Forget about greetings or whatever. Other team owners could say any day, "We are honoring [Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, 49ers] everywhere with our team name." If Dan Snyder ever says, "We are honoring redskins everywhere with our team name" they would probably give him the Donald Sterling treatment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

Irn-Bru wrote:As I said above, I would not be reluctant to call a gathering of Redskins fans, players, or staff, etc., Redskins.

hah. That is not remotely the question, my friend, and you know it.

Anyway, I've gone back and forth on the whole name thing a lot myself. Believe me, I'm equally irritated by the whole PC thing, and I personally find it hard to believe that anybody is REALLY, honestly that offended about our team name. People have a certain axe to grind, and our team name is the target. I don't really have any doubt about that.

This question about whether or not you would be willing to use the word to describe a group of Native Americans is worth thinking about though. I don't see how you can honor a group of people with a word that you would be afraid to use to describe them. Forget about greetings or whatever. Other team owners could say any day, "We are honoring [Cowboys, Steelers, Packers, 49ers] everywhere with our team name." If Dan Snyder ever says, "We are honoring redskins everywhere with our team name" they would probably give him the Donald Sterling treatment.

Do you really think the Raiders, and Buccaneers, and, to a point, Vikings want to honor those groups? Not really. Obviously, most mascots are chosen because they represent fierce opponents in battle, or some other enviable strenghts or qualities. That's what they mean when they say the name "honors" a particular group.

The US Senate and House have oceans of more important issues than what professional sports teams name their mascot.

Redskins is a MASCOT. The premise is basically imaginary. There are no real Detroit Lions! There are no REAL Tampa Bay Buccaneers! Certain people in this country and culture are trying so hard to be offended by things that don't matter at all, while, at the same time, they are denigrated in an outright-direct fashion in other aspects of life that really do considerable damage, and all they do is suck-it up-and ask for more (especially in a legislative/political sense). It's pathetic and I am embarrassed for them. Redskins, in the context and use of the term Washington Redskins, is NOT OFFENSIVE UNLESS YOU MAKE YOURSELF BE OFFENDED BY IT!

I commend Snyder and Allen and anyone who is for the continuation of a wonderful choice of a mascot for the Washington team. The name will not change as long as Snyder owns the team. I have never been so glad that Snyder is a young, wealthy, stubborn man in the entire tenure of his ownership until now! If they change their name, I will stop watching them play. I'm a Redskins fan, a Washington Redskins Football fan. It's not offensive, it's not meant to offend anyone except other teams and fanbases who already hate us because of the legacy we have with them ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD! It would be a devastating blow to the game, the league and the fanbase, as well as any and all rivalries. Imagine, if it changed, how often people of every stripe will say "They used to be the Redskins" and then that gets an entire back-story and retelling in itself. "Why did they change it? Redskins is just a mascot? That's dumb!" I'm sure a small percentage of fans will endure if it changes, but a majority (who live outside the DC area) will stop and go with another team or drop the sport entirely.

Deadskins wrote:Do you really think the Raiders, and Buccaneers, and, to a point, Vikings want to honor those groups? Not really. Obviously, most mascots are chosen because they represent fierce opponents in battle, or some other enviable strenghts or qualities. That's what they mean when they say the name "honors" a particular group.

I know what you're saying, but those teams haven't published letters from their team owner and team president claiming their name "honors" Raiders or Buccaneers or whatever. Have they? They're also not groups that exist today, as far as I know. Either way, I'm not sure how any of this addresses that key question. How can you honor a group of people with a name that you wouldn't use to their faces?

Snyder would probably do better to take the Indian head off the helmet and just say Redskins no longer has anything to do with Native Americans at all. Just throw in the towel and declare that Redskins refers to our red(ish) jerseys.

No amount of explaining and publishing letters is ever going to please everyone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

I personally doubt anyone was trying to honor a group when the name got changed from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins.

I could be wrong but I doubt that name change had anything to do with bestowing honor.

That is not to say the name should be changed - just my take on the "honor" claim.

There’s an inconsistency in the story that the Washington team name was adopted to honor Native Americans. In 1933, when the franchise switched from “Braves” to “Redskins” to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team, the team had a Native American coach, Lone Star Dietz, and several Native American players. But team owner George Preston Marshall told the Associated Press at the time of the change that their presence “has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that. At all. If we do, then we are erasing another part of our footprint in American culture. … Somewhere along the road it got out of hand, and became a caricature. Maybe it was lack of education, maybe it was society, but it turned into crazy, violent men running around beating drums with red paint on their face, and that’s not OK. But that doesn’t mean we should erase the name completely. We just need to make sure that the nickname is used in a tasteful manner and we are educating people about the meaning behind it. If we get rid of the name completely, we are erasing a part of our identity, and that’s something I know we have fought so hard to maintain.”

Jeremy Baker, 23, Creek and Seminole: “I think people my age and younger don’t have a problem with [the Redskins] near as much as the older people. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. Now if you walked in here and called me a ‘redskin,’ I might have a problem. It would be different. People my age wear Redskins gear even. I don’t know why younger people don’t care. I think we’re just not as much into Native American culture, with the way we’re raised today. We’re Americanized, I guess.”

Herb Stevens, director of the San Carlos Apache Cultural Center: “It’s an honor to be recognized as being ‘Native,’ but not to be called a redskin.”

Deadskins wrote:Do you really think the Raiders, and Buccaneers, and, to a point, Vikings want to honor those groups? Not really. Obviously, most mascots are chosen because they represent fierce opponents in battle, or some other enviable strenghts or qualities. That's what they mean when they say the name "honors" a particular group.

I know what you're saying, but those teams haven't published letters from their team owner and team president claiming their name "honors" Raiders or Buccaneers or whatever. Have they? They're also not groups that exist today, as far as I know. Either way, I'm not sure how any of this addresses that key question. How can you honor a group of people with a name that you wouldn't use to their faces?

It depends on how you are defining the word "honor." I thought I made it pretty clear. And I believe Dan and Bruce have used the word in the presence of Indians many times. When they speak with local tribe members they don't say " the Washington football team." They talk about the Redskins, so your argument really doesn't hold water.

PS There certainly are still pirates, and they murder, rape, and steal. Why should those groups be honored with a mascot?

DarthMonk wrote:I personally doubt anyone was trying to honor a group when the name got changed from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins.

I could be wrong but I doubt that name change had anything to do with bestowing honor.

That is not to say the name should be changed - just my take on the "honor" claim.

There’s an inconsistency in the story that the Washington team name was adopted to honor Native Americans. In 1933, when the franchise switched from “Braves” to “Redskins” to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team, the team had a Native American coach, Lone Star Dietz, and several Native American players. But team owner George Preston Marshall told the Associated Press at the time of the change that their presence “has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that. At all. If we do, then we are erasing another part of our footprint in American culture. … Somewhere along the road it got out of hand, and became a caricature. Maybe it was lack of education, maybe it was society, but it turned into crazy, violent men running around beating drums with red paint on their face, and that’s not OK. But that doesn’t mean we should erase the name completely. We just need to make sure that the nickname is used in a tasteful manner and we are educating people about the meaning behind it. If we get rid of the name completely, we are erasing a part of our identity, and that’s something I know we have fought so hard to maintain.”

Jeremy Baker, 23, Creek and Seminole: “I think people my age and younger don’t have a problem with [the Redskins] near as much as the older people. I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. Now if you walked in here and called me a ‘redskin,’ I might have a problem. It would be different. People my age wear Redskins gear even. I don’t know why younger people don’t care. I think we’re just not as much into Native American culture, with the way we’re raised today. We’re Americanized, I guess.”

Herb Stevens, director of the San Carlos Apache Cultural Center: “It’s an honor to be recognized as being ‘Native,’ but not to be called a redskin.”

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that.

This, I believe, is really the central issue here. When I encounter someone who says the Redskins should change their name, I will ask them whether they are just against the word "Redskins," or Indians as mascots in general. Then you can have a real discussion about the name.

Last edited by Deadskins on Thu May 29, 2014 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deadskins wrote:It depends on how you are defining the word "honor." I thought I made it pretty clear. And I believe Dan and Bruce have used the word in the presence of Indians many times.

It depends on how I define the word "honor"? It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is? lol. This is kind of my point, man. If we're having to go through these great linguistic acrobatics to answer the question there's probably a problem.

The dictionary says "honor" means:

n. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank:v. to confer honor or distinction upon:

From what Snyder and Allen have said, by definition, Native Americans should feel highly respected if we call them Redskins. So, go prove it.

Deadskins wrote:When they speak with local tribe members they don't say " the Washington football team." They talk about the Redskins, so your argument really doesn't hold water.

There's nothing wrong with my argument - you're just dodging the question. I haven't asked how team officials refer to Native Americans currently in everyday life. The question is would they be willing to address a group of Native Americans as "Redskins". If the name is intended to honor those people, then why not?

Its a simple question, but nobody can seem to answer it simply without paragraphs of explanation.

The answer is really simple. If you went out to a reservation and said, "What's up, Redskin?" you would get your a** beat. I wonder why that is?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

Deadskins wrote:This, I believe, is really the central argument here. When I encounter someone who says the Redskins should change their name, I will ask them whether they are just against the word "Redskins," or Indians as mascots in general. Then you can have a real discussion about the name.

Its a good question. I'll just say, I could probably walk into a room of Seminoles and say, "Good evening, Seminoles." I may even be able to walk into a room full of chiefs and say, "Hello, Chiefs."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

Deadskins wrote:It depends on how you are defining the word "honor." I thought I made it pretty clear. And I believe Dan and Bruce have used the word in the presence of Indians many times.

It depends on how I define the word "honor"? It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is? lol. This is kind of my point, man. If we're having to go through these great linguistic acrobatics to answer the question there's probably a problem.

The dictionary says "honor" means:

n. high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank:v. to confer honor or distinction upon:

From what Snyder and Allen have said, by definition, Native Americans should feel highly respected if we call them Redskins. So, go prove it.

Deadskins wrote:When they speak with local tribe members they don't say " the Washington football team." They talk about the Redskins, so your argument really doesn't hold water.

There's nothing wrong with my argument - you're just dodging the question. I haven't asked how team officials refer to Native Americans currently in everyday life. The question is would they be willing to address a group of Native Americans as "Redskins". If the name is intended to honor those people, then why not?

Its a simple question, but nobody can seem to answer it simply without paragraphs of explanation.

The answer is really simple. If you went out to a reservation and said, "What's up, Redskin?" you would get your a** beat. I wonder why that is?

No linguistic gymnastics. They are honoring their fierceness and strength. As for your example, it all depends on the context. If you called an Indian a Redskin in a racist way I would expect them to react violently. But you might call your best friend that as a term of endearment, and get a hug in return. No one is saying the word has never been used in a racist way. They're saying they are not using it in a racist way in this context.

I don't see the name changing until Dan Snyder is made to realize that the majority of Native Americans think the name of the Washington DC football franchise is offensive

AND - I just don't see that happening soon

the name Redskins may be offensive but it is not at this time offensive in the eyes of a majority of Native Americans when used in context

maybe in time that will happen but until then I'm kind of glad that a lot of people are so worked up about something that does not bother the majority of Native Americans

P A T I E N C E - Scot & Jay's goal here is to make this franchise better - it will take time they understand the need to change to primarily building through the draft - plus have some luck go their way

Deadskins wrote:As for your example, it all depends on the context. If you called an Indian a Redskin in a racist way I would expect them to react violently. But you might call your best friend that as a term of endearment, and get a hug in return. No one is saying the word has never been used in a racist way. They're saying they are not using it in a racist way in this context.

lol. Still dodging. You've written a lot and still haven't answered a very simple question. You keep trying to qualify it, and talk about context, and it depends on what the meaning of "honor" is. Like Ronald Reagan said: If you're explaining, you're losing. That's why Roger Goodell just avoided the question altogether.

Anyway, I didn't say you had to go say "Hello, Redskin" in a "racist way". Walk up to a group on a reservation and say "Hello Redskins" in the kindest, most charming voice you can muster. I'm sure you would be showered with hugs.

Incidentally, Dan Snyder is not best friends with the entire Native American population as far as I know. So, he probably shouldn't have reason to believe he is using the word as a term of endearment for his close friends.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax"We’re winning off the field, but we’ve got to start winning on the field." - Bruce Allen

Deadskins wrote:As for your example, it all depends on the context. If you called an Indian a Redskin in a racist way I would expect them to react violently. But you might call your best friend that as a term of endearment, and get a hug in return. No one is saying the word has never been used in a racist way. They're saying they are not using it in a racist way in this context.

lol. Still dodging. You've written a lot and still haven't answered a very simple question. You keep trying to qualify it, and talk about context, and it depends on what the meaning of "honor" is. Like Ronald Reagan said: If you're explaining, you're losing. That's why Roger Goodell just avoided the question altogether.

Anyway, I didn't say you had to go say "Hello, Redskin" in a "racist way". Walk up to a group on a reservation and say "Hello Redskins" in the kindest, most charming voice you can muster. I'm sure you would be showered with hugs.

Incidentally, Dan Snyder is not best friends with the entire Native American population as far as I know. So, he probably shouldn't have reason to believe he is using the word as a term of endearment for his close friends.

I'm not dodging anything, but I am explaining, because you're not getting my point. I keep trying to explain to you why Dan, Roger, I, you, or anyone else wouldn't walk up to some Indian they don't know and say "Hello Redskin." It's asinine! Would you walk up to a white person and say "Hello White?" Or a black person and say "Hello Black?" I doubt it. You wouldn't even walk up to an Indian and say "Hello Indian." It's got nothing to do with how flowery you say it. The person receiving the greeting has no context for the usage, other than racism. But that doesn't make the word Redskin inherently racist, nor does it mean that the word can't be used to honor Indian heritage when used in a respectful way. Do you understand the point I am making now?

Last edited by Deadskins on Thu May 29, 2014 3:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.